See this comment in the same thread for sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48541563

Not vacuous, but tautological. Which is different, because tautologies can actually be quite directly informative. Whereas vacuous truths tend to be oblique.

Also, “Microsoft is lying” is not a logically stronger statement, because they might be lying about something other than whether they distilled or trained on AI output.

Which licenses allow usage for training? MIT, BSD, etc likely do. But I would expect it gets weird for all the various copyleft licences.

Why would it get weird for those?

Theoretically it mandates that derivative works use same license but it's unclear if that applies to LLM outputs.

It doesn’t fully guarantee that. But it guarantees you don’t have a huge class of bugs. And it makes concurrency a lot easier to reason about.

No system will likely ever guarantee that software does what you expect. That runs into the halting problem, and practically runs into a verbosity problem. But that doesn’t mean systems that give scoped guarantees aren’t amazing for building (and iterating on) reliable software.

Microsoft themselves won’t do that. They are already under severe scrutiny internationally for fear of the US using Microsoft as leverage. They don’t want to stoke those fears. Once they do something like this, everyone who has been saying “stick with Microsoft services, they are the cheapest option compared to doing it ourselves, and have the lowest business continuity risk” will lose that argument at the same time. That creates a massive and clear opportunity for credible competitors to rise up.

This type of action would be like Trump in Iran “I am do much more powerful than you, so submit or suffer the consequences” can trivially backfire, and really reduces the effectiveness of your power.

Just because someone doing something would be stupid and self destructive long term doesn’t mean they won’t do it.

This is a rather strong analysis. And especially the point on behaviour change once market growth plateaus was new to me. Thanks!

I do want to nitpick on “unregulated free markets”. Because it’s almost an oxymoron. At least if one wants to rely on the theorems that prove free markets are best.

Those theorems assume a bit more than just a lack of regulation. They assume no information imbalance between parties. No ways outside of competition to keep out market entrants, and no collusion between market parties. All of those assumptions, in order to approach them in the real world, really require some strong regulation.

Hence I would argue that the problem isn’t just the growth curve flattening, but also a US (and EU) halt to Trust busting. Massive weakening of consumer protection agencies, and a general weakening of regulatory agencies by e.g. court cases.

It’s not just that we need stronger regulation because tech companies reached a point in their lifecycle where they wish to exploit more, as you so clearly argued. On top of that, regulatory power has been pulled back.

Agreed. I would define a market as a mutual social contract that favours voluntary estimation of resource value, and exchange thereof, over violent competition for resources. Such a contact must necessarily be enforced, since voluntary compliance among humans is never 100%. So yes, some form of regulation is built into the very definition of a free market. I'm fond of saying that, as rules approach zero, competition approaches war.

At least the servers bit seems very related no? I’d love to know more though.

The movement explicitly DOESNT want to force companies to keep their servers running. It is singularily concerned with keeping games playable in some form after shutdown. Be it via patching out the requirement on a server, providing a way to host it yourself or any other option, really.

If this removes people’s access to products (software licenses count as products here) someone payed fir once. Then you should only be allowed to do that if you enable people to continue using the product.

Releasing the server code should be a requirement. Software updates shouldn’t be required. Unless the product has a moment where it will stop functioning on the hardware it was build for built in (such as an expiring certificate).

This insider trading isn't hedge-funds working hard to get an edge. It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power. And by doing so in this manner, they are taking money away from the actual productive people trading in the futures market.

Besides, as Matt Levine often says. In the US, insider trading is a matter of miss-appropriating information when you have a duty of confidentiality. Its not about trading when you know more than someone else. Its about trading when you know something your not supposed to share.

>It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power.

The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on.

>The stench of corruption is overwhelming. Yet aside from the raw corruption, these incidents also raise a larger question. The insiders ripped off the parties who sold futures to them at what turned out to be very unfavorable prices to the sellers. What broader damage does this kind of unchecked insider trading do?

> The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on.

They are elected officials that are supposed to be working in our best interests, or at least the interest of their supporters.

Are they making decisions in our best interests or what makes their pocket book fatter? Poisons the whole system.

The American people knew who they were electing. They knew it, and they elected him anyway. Whatever damage results from that collective decision is our cross to bear.

Many of them will insist that they didn't know. Another group of "many" will insist that this is all somewhere between "not that bad" and "great".

The problem is that everyone else on earth has to suffer the consequences of those choices.

Again, that's bad, but still under "corruption", which is not what I, or the article is addressing.

A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout.

This is extremely basic incenive / money-flow tracing and "setting aside corruption" is a premise that has the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up. It smells like someone looking to force the framing. Everyone before me in this conversation was right to be suspicious of your motives in asking it, and I am suspicious as well.

>A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout.

That's still corruption. Your argument about other participants being "taxed" applies for other sophisticated counterparties as well, eg. hedge funds with armies of analysts and can fly helicopters around to gather intel. Unless you want to say that's bad too, the only difference between the two is that the hedge fund isn't engaging in corruption.

Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

>Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing.

Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention.

>Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention.

I did and that's not at all what TFA argues. It argues that it's the corruption that's the problem, which is exacerbated by the lack of legal enforcement by the current administration -- mostly because many in that administration are either actively involved in said corruption, or happy to cover it up/pooh pooh it.

I suppose you might think that some folks who haven't read TFA might buy your analysis, even though it's pretty much the opposite of what Krugman argues.

You go, girlfriend!

Nope. TFA does not adopt the extremely narrow focus you are trying to force. Nice try.

If you assume the referee is actually playing the game then yes, the difference between a referee making a call to advantage their own bets to make the other team win and an opposing team making a play to make themselves win is one of those entities is engaging in corruption.

The pacing of strategic military decisions being modulated to allow leading the futures market would be the very definition of "blood money".

It’s not just vaguely bad because of corruption. But its corruption that very directly increased the price of oil payed by everyone else.

I'm not sure what world we live in where being able to rent a helicopter implies hard work and not large amounts of preexisting wealth (generally taken by many to indicate at least some abuse of power, somewhere along the way).

Businesses require investment and a helicopter charter is probably less than a year of office space.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

Okay so what are you trying to say with this quote? Are you arguing that businesses don't require investment and risk?

That the idea of a level playing field is nonsense.

The wealthy can afford to continually leverage their wealth to accumulate even more wealth. This expresses in many different ways.

The wealthy man can afford the helicopter to get an edge at the global casino.

It's a structure designed to concentrate wealth and power and it won't end well for anyone involved, top or bottom.

It's a world where renting a helicopter is hilariously cheap available to some average person.

Looking at my local tourist helicopter place, a private custom flight is $1k per ~15m. That seems like nothing if it allows you be make millions with the information.

You can’t make millions from shorts unless you’ve already got millions to risk.

Shorts don't cost much to open, just the borrow rate on the shares. As long as it goes straight down you can leverage quite a bit without getting called.

Of course, this is the fastest way to lose your shirt and everything you have ever worked for, if there is any uncertainty.

Yes, I'm sure Robinhood or Schwab will allow me to open a $2M short position when my portfolio is $[sufficiently small that I'm debating the costs of a couple of thousand for a helicopter charter].

It's easy enough to synthesize 100x leverage by synthesis through options. If you have $25k for a margin account you could do it no problem. Of course, your funds would be rapidly vaporized if you were even a little bit wrong on timing or you needed more margin for volatility to keep it from getting called before it dips.

Is there any implementation of the store and forward for mobile nodes?

From what I recall, meshcore de duplication only tracks like the last 256 messages so that could quickly fail to de duplicate.

Meshtastic supports store and forward for ESP32 nodes that have a few MB of RAM, but not for the nRF52 devices that can't practically buffer much. I've only used the latter class of devices, so I don't have any experience with how well Meshtastic's store and forward works in practice.